GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

May 13, 2014

Spin Versus Reality!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Service Performance
[4] Comments 

Today’s Caulfield Leader features the public advertising of the Glen Eira budget and Strategic Resource Plan. Once again the public is assailed with the following claims in its budget papers – Glen Eira Council is characterised by low taxing (rates and charges)….low spending……

How true these claims are, readers can judge for themselves with the following facts on past and projected rate increases in Glen Eira from 2007 until 2017 –

2007/8 – 6.5%

2008/9 – 6.5%

2009/10 – 6.5%

2010/11 – 6.5%

2011/12 – 6.0%

2012/13 – 6.5%

2013/14 – 6.5%

2014/15 – 6.5%

2015/16 – 6.5%

2016/17 – 5.0%

By way of comparison here’s what some of our neighbouring councils forecast for their residents –

BAYSIDE – Rating levels – Modest rate increases are forecast over the four years. Council proposes a rate increase of 3.9% in 2014/15 and 4.3% for the following thee years to 2017/18.

STONNINGTON  – General rates are projected to increase by 4.3 percent in 2014/15 and 4.3 percent over the remaining years to 2017/18

On top of this, staff numbers continue to climb dramatically – again in stark contrast to other councils which often have a much larger area to service and a far greater population. Here are the Equivalent Full Time figures and these do not include the number of ‘contractors’ –

Bayside – 396

Port Phillip – 795

Yarra – 706

Stonnington – 575

Manningham – 493

Moonee Valley 728

Whitehorse – 654

Glen Eira  – 775

PS: We neglected to point out the following –

  • Council no longer claims that it provides the largest pensioner rebate on earth. Instead, the language now states that the rebate of $270 is higher than in most Victorian municipalities. The government subsidy was $253 and for 2014/15 is said to rise to $258. That means that Council’s ‘largesse’ has been decreasing each single year and that this year will signal the magnificent sum of approximately $12 per pensioner!

PPS: After a decade of promises, delays, and inaction, the Tree Register issue remains in the land of the never-never. Action Items for the 2013/14 budget stated in its goals and measures the following:

Introduce Local Law which creates the framework for a Classified Tree Register- Local Law adopted by Council.

The 2014/15 Action Plan has ‘re-engineered’ this outcome by stating –

Introduce Local Law which creates the framework for a Classified Tree Register – Local Law exhibited by Council.

So here’s another example of a council resolution that hasn’t been fulfilled. Further ‘adopting’ and ‘exhibiting’ a Local Law are vastly different things. There is no guarantee that by June 30th 2015 we will be any closer to having a Tree Register in Glen Eira – nor for that matter even clapping eyes on what promises to be a highly controversial set of Local Law amendments.

 

May 8, 2014

Hansard – Southwick

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Open Space, GE Service Performance
[33] Comments 

City of Glen Eira Crown land

Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield)—I rise to raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Environment and Climate Change regarding the Caulfield Park council depot and some Crown land located near the intersection of Glen Eira, Booran and Kambrook Roads, Caulfield, known as the Booran Road reserve. The action I seek is for the minister to explore with Glen Eira City Council the opportunity to relocate the Caulfield depot to the currently unused Crown land site of Booran reserve adjacent to the racecourse to free up parkland in Caulfield Park. The Caulfield depot is a large allotment within Caulfield Park on Inkerman Road and is used to store heavy maintenance vehicles and other equipment. Glen Eira has the lowest amount of open space of any Victorian municipality, and therefore the opportunity to create more recreational space must be explored.

I have spoken with local ward councillor, Michael Lipshutz, who regards this proposition very favourably. I am aware that council has in the past been agreeable to exploring options to move the depot on the premise it will not take away from recreational parkland at another site. I am also aware that Glen Eira City Council has rejected our offer for it to use the land for parkland. In addition, I have had discussions with Friends of Caulfield Park representatives who agree that shifting the Caulfield depot to the unused Booran reserve would free up further premium open space in Caulfield Park; which would be a big win for the Caulfield community. Glen Eira Debates, a community blog site, has had many locals voice their strong opinions on the matter. There has been overwhelming support from locals for the Caulfield Park depot to be relocated to free up additional open space. Caulfield Park is used and loved by all locals, and to open up additional recreational space in this suburban oasis would be fantastic.

I would greatly appreciate the minister exploring the opportunity with Glen Eira council to provide Caulfield residents with additional recreational open space by examining this opportunity, which would also allow the Caulfield Park depot to be located at the unutilised Booran reserve Crown land and free up much-needed space in the beautiful Caulfield Park, the jewel of open space in Caulfield.

 

May 5, 2014

The Budget

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments 
  • Child care fees up $5 per day
  • Expediture on drains remains at $3.5m which doesn’t even cover inflation and cost increases
  • GESAC fees up 3.5% (until January, then predictably higher) PLUS the following expenses –$261,000 for legal fees; GESAC plant and equipment – $86,000; Gesac defects rectification $617,320;Gesac refit administration area 1st floor stairwell with 3 consulting rooms for new therapy services $200,000
  • Government contribution to the pensioner rebate continues to rise – meaning that Council’s ‘largesse’ diminishes year after year.
  • Staff numbers of course keep rising!
  • The only REDUCTION in fees applies to some of the rubbish bin size collection.
 

May 2, 2014

Highest Rating Increase Council!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments 

Council

Rate Increase

Projected Capital Works
GLEN EIRA 6.5% 35.1 million

(8 Million is carry –over from 2013/4)
MONASH 6.0% 27.0 million
BOROONDARA 4.6% 54.11 million
MANNINGHAM 4.5% 31.23 million
STONNINGTON 4.3% 36.5 million
MOONEE VALLEY 6.0% 36.5 million
YARRA CITY 5.4% 35.6 million
WHITEHORSE 5.8% 29.0 million
BAYSIDE 3.9% 27.8 million
KINGSTON Not available as yet  
PORT PHILLIP 4.75% 32.73 million
FRANKSTON 5.5% 50.73 million
 

May 1, 2014

Come One, Come All!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[30] Comments 

Next Wednesday, the 7th May, will see the Planning Conference for the Big Screen at Caulfield Racecourse take place.

TIME: 6.30pm

CHAIR: Cr Jim Magee

VENUE: Town Hall

We can only hope that this time:

  • doors will not be locked
  • that clear directions are provided to residents so they can find the exact location
  • that enough plans are provided to go around
  • that the MRC deigns to appear and answer questions, and
  • that in future Council consider that 6.30pm is NOT the best time for such meetings if their objective is to truly engage with residents!

+++++++++++++

PS: and if any further evidence was needed to prove how Glen Eira City Council operates in contrast to its neighbours, we provide the following:

Residents and councillors reject State Government call for greater housing density in Boroondara

  • Greg Gliddon
  • Progress Leader
  • May 01, 2014 10:36AM
0
Boroondara residents and councillors have rejected a call from Planning Minister Matthew

Boroondara residents and councillors have rejected a call from Planning Minister Matthew Guy for an increase to the proportion of residential growth zones in the municipality. Source: News Limited

ANGRY residents and councillors have rejected last-minute planning zone changes that would see more neighbourhoods opened up to 13.5m-high residential developments.

More than 600 residents packed into the Camberwell Town Hall this week to hear councillors unanimously reject a planning scheme amendment that would see a greater proportion of residential areas allocated the Residential Growth Zone.

It was originally planned for 0.8 per cent of areas to be given the zone, under amendment C190. Planning Minister Matthew Guy asked for this to be increased to 2.5 per cent, under amendment C199.

A total of 123 residents wanted to speak at the special planning committee meeting, of which 52 were heard. The meeting stretched into the early hours of Tuesday morning.

Cr Jim Parke described the proposed changes as “utter nonsense”.

“What was put forward (originally) is a great outcome for Boroondara and council had every right to expect they would be approved by the minister,” Cr Parke said.

“Not for one moment did council tend to alter the protection of our city. It goes to show with the depth of feeling here tonight, that should also be conveyed to our local state members.”

Boroondara Residents Association President Jack Roach said there had been an unnecessary delay in approving the C190 amendment, which many people had found “unacceptable and detrimental” to the region.

“We request the minister approve C190 without delay,” he said.

‘There are 700 people here tonight who do not like this growth. These added bits are an insult to us all and the minister has to be told the people are not happy with this.”

The Leader asked Mr Guy’s office for a response to the meeting and details of when he plans to finalise planning scheme amendment C190.

A spokesman for Mr Guy said “An independent advisory committee is considering the merits of this issue and will give a recommendation back to the minister.”

++++++++++

And from Council Minutes 29/4 –

It has become apparent overtime, the Gallery feel we should have the opportunity to be able to speak as we are a democratic country. Instead we’re being gagged. Afterall we the ratepayers are paying the Councillors wages. So a motion should and needs to be passed on the above. During a meeting with the Mayor (Neil Pilling) last month he said he would agree to the idea of the Gallery being able to voice questions with certain restrictions. EG: time restraints. If the Councillors are discussing a particular subject the Gallery should be able to interject and ask a question by raising their hand, which is allowable in VCAT. What’s the point of attending Council Meetings monthly when we the ratepayers can’t voice our opinions.

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:
“Over recent years Council has considered the issue of meeting procedures including the provision for a public question time.
Council, by a majority decision, decided not to change the current format.”

 

April 30, 2014

Bye, Bye Conservatory!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Service Performance
[13] Comments 

In what can only be interpreted as a real slap in the face to community, 4 councillors last night showed exactly how hypocrisy reigns supreme in Glen Eira. For all the talk of ‘listening to the community’ and the absolute waste of public funds on ‘consultation’ year after year after year, it is the secret, behind the scenes ‘negotiations’ that matter far more than what ratepayers want. As Pilling so disingenuously stated ‘consultation is only part’ of decision making despite the fact that in September 2013 he had extolled the virtues and the binding nature of ‘consultation’ when he moved the motion to ‘restore’ the conservatory saying at the time that the motion ‘was justified by the consultation’.

The conservatory will be destroyed thanks to the votes of Lipshutz, Pilling, Esakoff and Delahunty – the latter seconding the Lipshutz motion. Hyams and Okotel were absent. Camden ward voters should note that this decision was supported by 2 out of their 3 representatives! Sounness, Magee and Lobo voted against the motion.

The hypocrisy mentioned above is made all the more apparent when we turn to our archives and highlight the sad history of the conservatory ‘debates’ over the years. Yes, individuals may alter their positions but certainly not for a paltry $200,000 and not when the community has spoken again and again about what they want done. This issue we believe is far more about integrity than money! As we’ve said, millions of dollars in budget blow-outs occur (ie Duncan MacKinnon, Booran Road Reservoir; car parks at GESAC) and no doubt will continue to occur. We therefore invite readers to peruse previous comments made by these four councillors at different times and ask themselves whether or not they are truly the voice of the people?

OCTOBER 2011

Pilling – sooner ‘we get back to restoring the facility the cheaper it will be’…

MAY 2013

Lipshutz – ‘There’s no suggestion’ that the place would be ‘demolished’…….‘it’s for the community to decide’.

Delahunty – important that community has input to get this ‘right’ but the question is what’s ‘right’. It’s always been her ‘ethos’ that the role of a councillor is to ‘represent’ and there are strong views about this issue and community groups such as Friends of Caulfield Park ‘can inform us’ and ‘own this process’ as to what it will look like down the track and not ‘spend the community’s money’ on what mightn’t ‘be the end result’. Said that previous consultation wasn’t about concepts and ‘possibly didn’t ask the right questions’ nor ‘broad enough’. Thus she thought that ‘we have to take the lead’ and tell people ‘these are the options’ and ‘hoped’ that community groups ‘take hold of this’. They should ‘inform us’ and ‘help us deliver’ the outcomes. Previous survey ‘only heard from 312 people’ and that’s ‘possibly not enough’ and wanted a ‘more ringing endorsement’ about what to do. ‘Will cop’ that this (ie consultation) has been ‘done before’ but ‘let this be the last time’.

Pilling: Said that the last resolution was to fix up the conservatory and ‘protect’ it and that this motion just ‘delays that’.

SEPTEMBER 2013

Delahunty – ‘that’s the process, that’s how it should happen’ that people are asked. ‘I really want to see the community involved in this’ so that in ‘ten years time’ if it comes up again. Wanted community groups to put forward their ‘great ideas’ and that it ‘encourages interaction’. ‘It’s a very clear outcome now’.

Pilling – acknowledged that there were divergent views from councillors but they were motivated by the desire to use ‘the conservatory better’ and ‘this has been justified by the consultation’. Ultimately ‘this is a win for everyone’.

 

April 29, 2014

Shop Local? – If You Can Get There!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[5] Comments 

localPaul Burke states that there is “no evidence that businesses would be adversely affected.” Research by Monash University certainly casts major doubt on such a statement!

Driving a changed approach to shopping

11 April 2013

Parking restrictions, single lanes, local council controlled parking areas, higher parking fees, train crossings and traffic lights were seen as barriers to shopping at local centres.

Small suburban shopping centres are disproportionately threatened by policies on climate change and traffic congestion that discourage consumers from using their cars, research shows.

The Monash University study found many people already favour larger shopping malls over local centres because of the perceived ease of parking and access.

Dr Vaughan Reimers from the Department of Marketing examined the importance shoppers gave to car convenience, recognising that urban sprawl and decentralised retail options had contributed to reliance on the car. He found that irrespective of age, gender or income, shoppers regarded access and parking as important determinants of where they chose to shop.

He also assessed perceptions of shopping malls and shopping strips, and then compared the actual level of convenience provided by both for people travelling by car. The results were published in Transportation Research Part A.

Dr Reimers’ study showed that although shopping malls had more parking than local centres, people were more likely to be able to park close to desired stores at their local centre. However, it was commonly believed that large shopping complexes always had better parking options – a belief that has helped contribute to the rise of the mall.

Parking restrictions, single lanes, local council controlled parking areas, higher parking fees, train crossings and traffic lights were seen as barriers to shopping at the smaller centres by respondents.

“On the basis of the results of this study, any strategies designed to deter car-usage are likely to tip the balance even further in favour of the mall,” Dr Reimers said.

“Many policies related to tackling climate change have not only failed to achieve their objective but have also had a negative effect on the retail sector.”

Dr Reimers said modern transport systems needed to find a balance between environmental sustainability and economic growth, a fact that was particularly significant in light of the competitive disadvantage faced by suburban shopping centres.

“Policy makers and urban planners must give careful consideration to the negative consequences that may stem from strategies designed to deter car-based shopping,” Dr Reimers said.

Source: http://monash.edu/news/show/driving-a-changed-approach-to-shopping

 

April 28, 2014

Caulfield Park Conservatory – Again, & Again, & Again & Again!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Service Performance
[8] Comments 

Here we go again, with the continuing saga of the Caulfield Park Conservatory. The Council agenda for Tuesday night contains this set of recommendations/’options’ authored by that ubiquitous entity – Mr Nobody!

Options include, but are not limited to:

a. select a tender for the restoration of the conservatory and accept the significantly increased cost;

b. remove the conservatory and return the area to open space including new plantings of exotic species – estimated cost $75k;

c. remove the conservatory and amphitheatre and return both areas to open space including new plantings of exotic species –estimated cost $140k;

d. undertake consultation on alternative proposals;

e. other action as directed.

7. Recommendation

That Council give direction.

Residents may well ask:

  • Didn’t Council really know that the cost of refurbishment would be more than the amount budgeted for less than a year ago? Or is this officer’s report just another example of fudging the truth? For example we urge readers to return to somee of our earlier posts (https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/council-meeting-caulfield-park-conservatory/ and https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/the-conservatory-debate/) where Lipshutz , arguing for the café option, states that ‘keeping the conservatory’ would be $300,000 to $400,000. That was October 2011!
  • Since when has the realisation of increased cost been a deterrent to find extra money by this council? We note the 2 GESAC car park extensions; the blow out from 6 million to ten million for the Duncan MacKinnon Pavilion and now the mooted 7 million to 9 million for the Booran Road Reservoir! Finding extra money for these mega palaces has never been a problem in the past.
  • Why has the conservatory been allowed to become so run down year after year? To the best of our knowledge the only funds allocated to any kind of work on the conservatory was $100k in 2007/8. Since then it’s basically been allowed to rot!
  • How many more goes should residents expect on the issue of the conservatory? How many more resolutions regarding ‘full restoration’ need to be carried before anything is done?
  • As the minutes of April 2013 tells us –

Council has considered the matter at its Ordinary Meetings of 13 December 2006, 14 December 2010 and 11 October 2011. On the last occasion Council resolved:

“(a) That Council recognises the heritage value of the Caulfield Park Conservatory

(b) That Council determine not to proceed with and Expression of Interest campaign for the Caulfield Park Conservatory

(c) That Council considers funding in the 2012/13 budget for the repairs and full restoration of the Caulfield Park Conservatory.

Carried”

That resolution of course went nowhere since the cafe option reared its ugly head once more only to be soundly trounced by community views in the ensuing ‘consultation’. It’s certainly time that councillors accept what the community wants and that they ensure that ‘full restoration’ and adequate maintenance is carried out immediately. Eight years of neglect and pussy footing around has to stop.

 

April 25, 2014

Agenda Items #1

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[15] Comments 

Included in the agenda items for Tuesday night’s Council Meeting, there is a letter from the Valuer General’s office in response to Council’s missive. The letter provides an affirmative response to Magee’s motion that the Valuer General become involved in the Trustee/MRC lease negotiations. All well and good and certainly a step forward. However the letter basically concentrates only on the current lease negotiations and remains quite taciturn (and evasive?) on the request to REVIEW ALL LEASES.  Whether this is intentional, or merely an oversight, we leave readers to decide for themselves.

Duration of the ‘new’ lease and the implications it has for the removal of training is yet another element that does not feature but which is vital if the Reserve is to fulfill its function as a racecourse, public park and recreation area.

We also wonder what has happened to the rest of the Magee resolution of March 18th – ie to involve the Auditor General re the landswap and hence the potential conflict of interest issues. Has Council had any response(s) to this component of the resolution? Why isn’t this mentioned in the report?Pages from APRIL29-2014-AGENDA

 

 

April 23, 2014

Council – So ‘Community Minded’!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[4] Comments 

We’ve received an email from a resident which in our view epitomises everything that is wrong with the Glen Eira City Council administration and, in particular, its penchant for secrecy and putting every single obstacle it can in the way of residents.

Here’s what happened.

  • A resident went down to council offices and asked to see the Melbourne Transport Victoria submission on the Caulfield Village Development Plan.
  • An officer finally came down with the submission and told the resident that photographs or copies were verboten.
  • The resident, not to be put off, then started to transcribe the submission in full.
  • The officer remained watching the resident write for at least ten minutes and was clearly bored out of his brain and inwardly fuming. He then called in an underling to continue with the surveillance.

What is so outrageous about this behaviour is:

  • There is NOTHING, not a single word, in the Planning and Environment Act which precludes residents from taking a photo of a submission. The ‘embargo’ by council is simply another example of their determination to make things as difficult as they possibly can for residents. It is simply another ‘rule’ concocted by council to prevent widespread dissemination of a public document.
  • It also illustrates the common council practice of ‘if it’s not stated in the legislation’ then we can’t do it. Or the reverse is also true – if it’s not stated in the legislation, we can do it’. It all depends on the situation and the objective – for example: the Local Law and the Meeting Procedures and attempts to dissent from the chair!
  • Residents need to ask: how much did this officer surveillance cost ratepayers? How many dollars went down the drain when two employees stood around watching someone else write instead of getting on with the work they are paid (by us) to do?

Finally, here is the transcript as forwarded to us. All that has been left out are the reference numbers –

Received – 27th February 2014

 

Public Transport Victoria

Ref FQL

Rocky Camera

Coordinator Statutory Planning

Thank you for your letter dated 28/01/14 referring the Caulfield Village Development Plan to Public Transport Victoria. Please find Public Transport Victoria’s comments below.

While the accompanying Integrated Transport Plan (ITP) has made references to most items as outlined in Schedule 2 to the Property Development Zone PTV requires the following additional information to be able to conduct a proper assessment of the plan.

1/ Demonstrate how Station Street will accommodate the ‘Undivided Connector Road – B’ as detailed in the Public Transport Guidelines for Land Use and Development (i.e. a minimum 4.2 metres shared carriageway for both vehicles and bikes and a minimum 2.3 metres wide parking lane).

2/ Provide further information regarding the layout and location of the proposed bus stop at the intersection of Station Street and The Boulevard. Confirm that such bus stop would be funded by the development.

3/ Further detail on how existing tram services along Normanby Road and bus services along Station Street will be impacted by the proposed development (i.e. delays to journey time) including the intersection plans showing the proposed works, how they will accommodated within the road reserve and how they will operate.

4/ Further detail on the future planning for the Normanby Road / Smith Street tram stop (i.e. timing, planning location and design of a potential Superstop).

In addition, PTV does not support the introduction of a shared tram and traffic lane as suggested in Table 4.3 of the ITT on the Normanby Road/The Boulevard/Smith Street intersection. Introducing additional traffic to the existing tram right turn would cause travel time delays to the tram service. The intersection should be designed as not to detrimentally impact the current levels of tram operation.

The PTV would prefer that the Implementation Plan submitted with the Development Plan documents clearly sets out how each intersection across the development will be constructed and the timing for delivery detailed in an approved implementation plan.

Yours,

Richard McAliece

Manager

Land and Planning

24 / 2 / 2014

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »